US v Peter Navarro
- RTH10260
- Posts: 17395
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
Re: US v Peter Navarro
His lawyers know something that the other lawyers in contempt cases re J6 did not know?
- Phoenix520
- Posts: 4152
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
- Verified: ✅
Re: US v Peter Navarro
ME ME ME LOOK AT MEEEEEE
WHEEEEEE
LOOK AT MEEEEEE!
I know I’m tiny but you can still see me… can’t you? WELL, CAN’T YOU!?!
WHEEEEEE
LOOK AT MEEEEEE!
I know I’m tiny but you can still see me… can’t you? WELL, CAN’T YOU!?!
- Kriselda Gray
- Posts: 3125
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
- Location: Asgard
- Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
- Verified: ✅
- Contact:
Re: US v Peter Navarro
I hope the prosecutors object to that. It sounds like a nifty way for him to convince everyone he's innocent before anyone gets the chance to make the case he's not. I know it wouldn't be jury tampering in the legal sense, but it could easily have a similar effect...raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:33 am Navarro’s attorneys want to delay trial due to his upcoming book publicity tour. Trial date set for November 17th.
- Kriselda Gray
- Posts: 3125
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
- Location: Asgard
- Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
- Verified: ✅
- Contact:
Re: US v Peter Navarro
He seems to enjoy talking to Ari on MSNBC...Kendra wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:37 amHow many times can he do the same book spin on Fox, Newsmax, etc? He shirley won't go on CNN/MSNBC/ABC, etc.?raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:33 am Navarro’s attorneys want to delay trial due to his upcoming book publicity tour. Trial date set for November 17th.
- raison de arizona
- Posts: 20219
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
- Location: Nothing, Arizona
- Occupation: bit twiddler
- Verified: ✔️ he/him/his
Re: US v Peter Navarro
And why this is bad news for Peter Navarro...
Elie Mystal @ElieNYC wrote: Good lord, we have Vega v. Tekoh. The Supreme Court just gutted Miranda, ruling that a person who did NOT receive the warning has NO RIGHT to sue the government for the constitutional violation.
6-3. By the people you'd expect. Jesus Christ.
Folks, this basically overturns "the right to remain silent." It means that you can't sue the state if a cop fails to tell you your rights.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
Re: US v Peter Navarro
With due respect for Mystal, that's a bit of a reach.
The statements are still inadmissible in court; Miranda remains intact.
Vega v. Tekoh, however, essentially will incentivize bad-faith omissions of the warnings, as in some instances the officer's goal isn't to win in court, but to inflict punishment by gearing up the criminal justice system to target a person without sufficient means to defend in court.
But, yes, this ruling will make it more difficult for Navarro to sue the officers to whom he spoke. Not like such a suit was going to win before today's ruling.
The statements are still inadmissible in court; Miranda remains intact.
Vega v. Tekoh, however, essentially will incentivize bad-faith omissions of the warnings, as in some instances the officer's goal isn't to win in court, but to inflict punishment by gearing up the criminal justice system to target a person without sufficient means to defend in court.
But, yes, this ruling will make it more difficult for Navarro to sue the officers to whom he spoke. Not like such a suit was going to win before today's ruling.
- RTH10260
- Posts: 17395
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
Re: US v Peter Navarro
"There’s a sucker born every minute” — P.T. Barnum
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Too bad its only the rich and famous who get to crowdfund their legal defense when they get into trouble.
Poor people charged with crimes should sure use that.
Poor people charged with crimes should sure use that.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
- pipistrelle
- Posts: 8049
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Are we fascist bastards or communist bastards or socialist bastards or what? I can’t keep it straight.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
"fascist bastards" are his buddies. Projection all around.
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Re: US v Peter Navarro
I'm a Socialist but I know who my daddy was.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Navarro: The reason why I think the Pence is guilty of treason to at least Trump and perhaps in this country is that he acted on the basis of a flawed legal opinion
- RTH10260
- Posts: 17395
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
Re: US v Peter Navarro
"treason to at least T"
Doesn't he know that treason applies against the US, the country, only?
"that he acted on the basis of a flawed legal opinion"
The laws of the land are now flawed opinion?
Doesn't he know that treason applies against the US, the country, only?
"that he acted on the basis of a flawed legal opinion"
The laws of the land are now flawed opinion?
- Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Re: US v Peter Navarro
James Madison wrote:Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Remember when he whined that the police didn't sufficiently tell him about his privilege to STFU?
- northland10
- Posts: 6682
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
- Location: Northeast Illinois
- Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
- Verified: ✅ I'm me.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
I envision one of them saying... "you have a right to remain silent.. use it, dammit."
101010
- pipistrelle
- Posts: 8049
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Oh dear, I went to the grifting site, it's worth it at least to read his about me
I has a sad, maybe I'll pull my monthly $25 donation to Purrfect pals and send it to Peter instead. Nah.
I has a sad, maybe I'll pull my monthly $25 donation to Purrfect pals and send it to Peter instead. Nah.
- Phoenix520
- Posts: 4152
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
- Verified: ✅
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Off Topic
is that FosterDadJohn’s place?
- Phoenix520
- Posts: 4152
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
- Verified: ✅
Re: US v Peter Navarro
The hours I’ve spent watching him roll around on the floor with those babies…
Re: US v Peter Navarro
Phoenix520 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:06 am The hours I’ve spent watching him roll around on the floor with those babies…
Off Topic
Me too.
Re: US v Peter Navarro
ALERT: US Justice Dept made plea agreement offer to Peter Navarro in Contempt of Congress case
Offer -- rejected